Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add TeamManagementPlugin/claude-plugin --skill team-management-receiving-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TeamManagementPlugin/claude-pluginWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/team-management-receiving-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/team-management-receiving-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/team-management-receiving-feedback/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/team-management-receiving-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/team-management-receiving-feedback.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00097 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
team-management-receiving-feedback scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
Code review is technical evaluation, not social performance. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming.
Response Pattern
- Read the complete feedback without reacting.
- Restate the requirement in your own words — or ask, if it is unclear.
- Verify the claim against the actual state of the codebase: the file, the line, the test.
- Evaluate whether it is technically correct for this codebase.
- Respond with a technical acknowledgment, a reasoned push-back, or a clarifying question.
- Implement one item at a time, testing each before starting the next.
Forbidden vs Preferred Phrases
Forbidden — performative, carrying no technical content:
- "You're absolutely right!"
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!"
- "Thanks for catching that!"
- Gratitude generally. Actions speak; the fixed code shows you heard.
Preferred:
- "Fixed. Extracted validation to
auth.py:validate_email." - "Good catch — off-by-one at line 47. Changed to
< n." - Or just make the fix and let the diff show it.
If you catch yourself typing "Thanks" — delete it and state the fix instead.
External-Reviewer Skepticism
External reviewers — another AI reviewer, or a human without full project context — may hallucinate file paths, invent issues, or miss decisions that were made deliberately. Before implementing external feedback, ask:
- Is it technically correct for this codebase?
- Would it break existing functionality?
- Is there a reason the current implementation is the way it is?
- Does the reviewer have the full context — the project's conventions, prior decisions, constraints?
- If you cannot easily verify it, say so: "I can't verify this without X — should I investigate, or skip it?"
A finding with no verifiable file:line citation is not actionable. Resolve it to a real location by reading the code yourself, or drop it.
The YAGNI Grep Check
When a reviewer suggests "implement this properly" or otherwise expands scope:
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 93 lines · 97 tokens per session scan A 2c6d4dd476dd
team-management-receiving-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository TeamManagementPlugin/claude-plugin (6 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 97 tokens to every session and 854 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
seal
Ships a feature — simplify pass, certify, commit, PR, CI monitoring, review loop, merge. Use when a feature branch is verified and ready to ship.
scribe
A documentation tool that finds recurring practices and failure patterns in closed pull requests, issues, research notes, and the current code.
use-workflow-tdd-cycle
A test-first coding process based on TDD, or test-driven development: write a failing test, make it pass, then improve the code.
pr
A workflow for analyzing branch changes and creating a draft pull request, including a screenshot step when the changes affect the user interface.
transcribe
A spreadsheet-reading workflow for converting XLSX, ODS, or CSV files into Markdown, including documents that use merged cells for layout. It checks that every spreadsheet cell survives the conversion.
ablate
An ablation workflow for testing a harness by removing one element at a time and measuring whether that element changes the result. A harness is the surrounding setup used to run and evaluate a system.